Chrystia Freeland’s "world’s best diplomat" award (June 14) mirrors Obama’s Nobel—likely political theater—given her shaky trade record, like the collapsing EU deal and NAFTA’s lackluster results, while mocking Canada’s reliance on Tunisia or Ukraine over Western allies. Meanwhile, Lindsay Shepherd’s $3.6M lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University exposes alleged faculty bullying, including a 55-minute interrogation over tweets, and enrollment drops amid backlash. The Ottawa Public Library’s cancellation of Killing Europe (June 15) under pressure from activist Richard Warman underscores growing deplatforming trends, with lawsuits like Madeline Weld’s challenging free speech norms. Freeland’s contradictions—praising authoritarian "efficiency" while blaming populism for democracy’s decline—highlight Canada’s fractured global stance, where rhetoric clashes with reality. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, Canada's Christia Freeland wins an award for the world's best diplomat.
Oh, it gets even better.
It's June 14th, and you're watching The Ezra LeVant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
You come here once a year with a sign, and you feel morally superior.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
So, Christia Freeland, Canada's foreign minister, she won an award for being the world's bestest diplomat ever yesterday.
I'm not even kidding.
It reminds me of Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize immediately after he was inaugurated.
Immediately, he didn't even do anything yet.
But the Norwegian parliamentary committee that makes such decisions like the cut of his jib.
They liked that he was a leftist, so he won it.
I mean, seriously, just days after Donald Trump's historic meeting with Kim Jong-un, a meeting that U.S. senior diplomat Mike Pompeo, first as a CIA director and now as the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo handled many of the operational details of that, but no, you're so mistaken, people.
Christia Freeland is the best diplomat in the world.
I mean, I remember when she just nailed that European trade deal.
We have worked very hard with the European Commission and with a lot of countries and members of the European Union.
Canada has worked very hard, and I personally have worked very hard.
But Canada, Colonel European, not maternal, daughter, a international,
even with a country that values if European values like Canada, and even with a country if you pass like Canada.
Yeah, that's falling apart now, that trade deal, as you may know, Italy wants out of it.
Okay, well, maybe it was for this.
The European Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, and I call each other sisters in trade.
We sign our emails, hugs.
We actually do that?
Yes, we do.
We sometimes send each other smiley faces in particularly difficult moments.
No, I don't think that's why they said she was the best.
Well, then what was it for?
Was it for the diplomatic successes of Trudeau's big trip to India?
No, no, no, that's more a fiasco.
Oh, was it for her deft touch during the NAFTA negotiations?
I mean, look at that dream team.
I mean, these people have literally months of experience in negotiating international trade deals or something.
I don't know.
They read about it on Wikipedia or something.
Look at that crack team of killer negotiators.
Was there for her successes there?
No, of course not.
Like Obama's Nobel Prize, this was not a recognition of achievement.
It was bestowing of political agreement by the group that gave her the prize.
So it was really just a way of saying, we don't like Donald Trump, so we like someone who's anti-Trump.
And being given this award I put it to you is actually a dangerous sign.
If you're winning this award, you know, if you're actually in real life trying to get a deal with Trump, you don't want this award because it's only given to Trump haters.
But maybe Trudeau and Freeland don't actually want to deal with Trump.
I'm starting to suspect that.
So it's a bit of a laugh.
Trump and Pompeo have a successful summit with North Korea that if it fulfills its promise will be the biggest diplomatic achievement in half a century.
But Christia Freeland is awarded the bestest diplomat in the history of the whole world, plus the solar system, plus the Galaxy 2.
Got it.
But if you think that is lame, check out her acceptance speech.
It is quite something.
Now, I'm going to try and be fair and give it credit where due.
I'm going to play a lot of clips of it.
But let's just start from the start where she just riffs off the cuff a bit.
I'm also very Canadian, so I'm quite flustered to have so many nice things said about me.
We believe modesty is a virtue in Canada, and this is sort of not in that zone.
Yeah, I actually do think modesty is a Canadian trait, but bragging about being modest is sort of a Trudeau liberal trait because it's a kind of self-praise, especially when you're trying to tweak Trump's nose.
And it's true for Joe Canadian, but it's not really true for Justin Trudeau, is it?
Weakening International Order00:15:27
It's modest.
Moi?
Yeah, mai wi.
No, no, no, I don't think so.
Anyways, let's look at Freeland's speech on its own terms.
Here are some clips.
So tonight, I would like to speak about a challenge that affects us all and I believe worries us all, and that is the weakening of the rules-based international order and the threat that resurgent authoritarianism poses to liberal democracy.
Okay, that sounds good.
I'm against authoritarianism.
Let's listen some more.
She starts out by praising what she calls rules-based systems for how countries get along with each other.
But that really doesn't have anything to do with authoritarianism versus a liberal democracy, does it?
I mean, whether or not a country follows its trade treaties, for example, what does that have to do with how it treats its own people domestically?
Now, we harbored no illusions then that institutions such as the WTO or the IMF or the World Bank or the UN were perfect, or that our own democracies at home, with their sausage-making methods of legislating and governing, were without flaw.
But there was a broad consensus that the Atlantic nations, plus Japan, led an international system of rules that had allowed people, our peoples, to thrive and which would surely continue to do so.
See, right there, do you think that countries thrive because of foreign treaties?
Or is it maybe more because of freedom and democracy within their own borders?
Really?
What does the World Bank or the IMF have to do with how well a country does?
I mean, they usually come into the failed states.
I mean, freedom, free markets, the rule of law, independent courts, property rights, that's what makes a country's people unleash their opportunity and be strong.
Not the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank that give loans with conditions and manipulate currencies.
I think Freeland is confused a bit.
Here's a little more.
In Latin America, in the Caribbean, in Africa, and in Asia, developing countries have joined these institutions and accepted their rules.
And that has delivered ever greater living standards to their people.
Is that really why those countries have higher living standards?
Because of rules imposed on them by globalist unelected bureaucracies?
I'm going to go with no.
Not at all.
There is no correlation whatsoever.
In fact, Switzerland is not rich because it's in the United Nations or other treaties.
It's actually rather neutral.
And apart from other deals, it's rich because it's free and civilized and democratic.
Freeland flips it upside down.
She says it's globalism that makes countries rich, no, but they can still be unfree, actually.
She's muddled in her thinking, which is typical of Trudeau's team, strong on clichés and talking points in one-liners, not strong on principled, coherent philosophy.
But let me give her credit.
She says that Venezuela and China are bad.
That was the idea that as authoritarian countries joined the global economy and grew rich, they would inevitably adopt Western political freedoms too.
That hasn't always happened.
Indeed, in recent years, even some democracies have gone in the other direction and slipped into authoritarianism.
Notably and tragically, Venezuela.
And some countries that had embarked on the difficult journey from communism to democratic capitalism have moved backwards.
The saddest personal example for me is Russia.
Even China, whose economic success in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty is one of the great accomplishments of recent times, stands as a rebuke to our belief in the inevitability of liberal democracy.
Some truth there.
China is evil, the government is, even though it's economically liberalizing.
But to say that China follows the rules of international law is laughably false.
Whether it's about human rights, treaties, or trade treaties, China just doesn't follow those deals.
But that's the joke here.
There is no such thing as an international law.
That's a fiction.
There's no international legislature that writes laws.
There's no international court that judges laws.
There's no international police force that implements those laws.
It's a fiction.
I think she's groping for a common thread here, China, Russia, Venezuela.
It's not globalism.
It's not foreign treaties or international law.
It's that all those countries restrict the freedom of their own people.
It's not treaties.
Maybe she gets it, though.
I don't know.
It's hard to understand her.
But then she gets weird.
She moves from that complaint to complaining about free Western countries.
So she complains about China, Venezuela.
Good, thanks.
But get this.
And within the club of wealthy Western nations, we are seeing homegrown anti-democratic forces on the rise.
Whether they are neo-Nazis, white supremacists, incels, nativists, or radical anti-globalists, such movements seek to undermine our democracies from within.
Say what?
Are neo-Nazis a political or economic or diplomatic force anywhere in the world, anywhere at all?
White supremacists?
I mean, there are some white supremacist people in the world.
Sure, but do they run a country?
Do they run an economy?
Do they run a military?
Do they run a foreign affairs department?
What does this have to do with what she calls international rules-based foreign policy again?
Or domestic liberties?
An incel.
She used the word, a word none of us had heard until a couple of months ago when some guy in North Toronto drove a truck down a sidewalk, killing people, and he allegedly made a Facebook comment before he did that about being an in-cell, which is short for an involuntary celibate.
In other words, someone who can't get a date.
Really?
So some murderer makes a Facebook post about not being able to get a date, and that is proof that he represents a deep threat, the Western civilization on par with authoritarian regimes in Russia, China, and Venezuela.
Who wrote this crud?
I bet Christy Freeland wrote it herself.
But my favorite or least favorite line is radical anti-globalists.
When she said that, did you hear that?
That's a threat.
Radical anti-globalist, as in someone who wants decisions to be made in their own region, not by some foreign United Nations or European Union bureaucrat far away.
So Christy Freeland is sort of condemning Brexit, isn't she?
And the governments in Italy and Hungary and elsewhere in the world who are rejecting the one world government that the UN points to that Christia Freeland loves.
But how is being a radical local democracy activist, how is that authoritarian to be anti-UN and pro-Brexit?
Isn't being anti-globalist by definition very democratic?
You want local control, local decision-making.
You're against anonymous bureaucrats of the UN or the EU making decisions for you.
How is that authoritarian?
I think it's the opposite, muddled thinking here.
She then indulges in some vague paranoia about Russia hacking elections.
Obviously, she's a Hillary Clinton supporter who's just parroting the talking points there.
But then she says this.
This is a speech in Washington, D.C., right after her spat with Donald Trump over NAFTA.
Why are our liberal democracies vulnerable at home?
Here's why.
Angry populism thrives where the middle class is hollowed out, where people are losing ground and losing hope, even as those at the very top are doing better than ever.
Hang on.
Populism is the will of the people, isn't it?
And that's where the word populist population comes from, right?
How does populism endanger democracy?
Isn't that sort of a synonym for democracy?
Isn't that actually what saves a country?
Democracy channels populism peacefully, safely, to allow countries to change their political course without violence or revolution.
Isn't the opposite of populism authoritarianism?
The opposite of listening to the people is forcing your views on the people.
Isn't the wonderful miracle of throwing out bad leaders peacefully, like was just done in the Ontario provincial election, isn't that the definition of populism?
Safe, peaceful transfer of power?
Isn't the United Nations or the European Union or the World Bank or the IMF, aren't those anti-democratic because they're immune to the will of the people that they seek to rule over?
She is confused.
Here's some more.
When people feel their economic future is in jeopardy, when they believe their children have fewer opportunities than they themselves had in their youth, that's when people are vulnerable to the demagogue who scapegoats the outsider, the other, whether it's immigrants at home or trading partners abroad.
Is she talking about Trump?
But like Justin Trudeau, she lacks the courage to actually name him by name?
I think she is.
That's how the CBC state broadcaster is spinning that.
But Trump has brought record low unemployment to America, a surging economic growth rate.
Factories are coming back home.
Concessions are being made to America from China, from Germany, and surely soon from Canada.
U.S. business confidence is at record highs.
Why is she still talking as if Trump is taking advantage of poor people as opposed to Trump turning poor people into prosperous people?
Talk about projecting.
But sure, she'll snipe at anti-immigrant sentiments, another veiled reference to Donald Trump and his wall.
But talk about sneering.
You know, only 8% of Canadians want more immigration, according to the Liberal Party's own polls.
Talk about authoritarianism.
Talk about anti-democracy to push for open borders in the face of those poll numbers.
She's the bully.
She's the authoritarian in a way.
And blaming foreign actors, as she says, isn't she the one who just claimed Russia was hacking elections?
Was this speech written by committee?
It's so muddled.
I think this crack team here wrote her speech.
I really do.
Here's another clip.
The fact is, middle-class working families aren't wrong to feel left behind.
Median wages have been stagnating.
Jobs are becoming more precarious.
Pensions uncertain.
Housing, childcare, and education harder to afford.
Is she talking about America?
Because that's not true.
Is she talking about Canada?
Who is she talking about?
Does she even know?
What does this have to do with diplomacy?
Look, I've been critical, but let me show you one sentence from her speech that I agree with completely.
But setting our own house in order is just one part of the struggle.
The truth is that authoritarianism is on the march, and it's time for liberal democracy to fight back.
To do that, we need to raise our game.
Okay, great.
So what about Trudeau's favorite countries, like Iran, with whom he's rebuilding business relations and offering to renew diplomatic ties?
What about China, that Trudeau says is his favorite country because of its basic dictatorship.
Remember that?
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime.
So that's Trudeau.
He likes China's basic dictatorship because it gets things done quickly.
And here's Christy Freeland last night on just that subject.
Authoritarianism is also often justified as a more efficient way of getting things done.
No messy contested elections, no wrenching shift from one short-termist governing party to another, no troublesome judicial oversight, no time-consuming public consultation.
How much more effective, the apologists argue, for a paramount leader with a long-term vision, unlimited power, and permanent tenure to rule?
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what Justin Trudeau says he likes about China.
Talk about a confused government.
This is going on too long.
I'm sorry I'm showing you so much, but I want to show it to you.
I know you're not going to see this anywhere else.
Let me show you what Christy Freeland said about America.
Okay, biggest diplomatic fiasco since, well, I guess India.
Trump offered a concession in private to Justin Trudeau.
Trudeau accepted it in private.
And the concession was about the five-year expiration of NAFTA.
So Trump and Trudeau got along in private.
Trump made a concession to Trudeau.
And then when Trump got on his plane and left, in public, Trudeau had a press conference saying Trump was insulting Canadians and pushing us around.
Right after Trump made a concession and gave Trudeau what he wanted.
Of course Trump was furious.
That's a big problem.
In fact, Trump said that little outburst by the shiny pony is going to cost Canada a lot of money.
I actually like Justin.
You know, I think he's good.
I like him.
But he shouldn't have done that.
That was a mistake.
That's going to cost him a lot of money.
Okay, so here's Canada's attempt at damage control.
The 232 tariffs introduced by the United States are illegal under WTO and NAFTA rules.
They are protectionism, pure and simple.
They are not a response to unfair actions by other countries that put American industry at a disadvantage.
They are a naked example of the United States putting its thumb on the scale in violation of the very rules it helped to write.
Canada has no choice but to retaliate with a measured, perfectly reciprocal dollar-for-dollar response.
And we will do so.
We act in close collaboration with our like-minded partners in the EU and Mexico.
They too are your allies, and they share our astonishment and our resolve.
Yeah, I'm guessing that crack team of Christia's angels wrote this speech.
I hear that when you're in an insult fight with Donald Trump, the best way to win is keep poking him.
I mean, it's not like the U.S. economy is 10 times larger than Canada's.
If Canada-U.S. trade were to fall in half because of an insane Armageddon trade war, I don't even think it could ever get that bad.
Well, that would reduce U.S. GDP by 1%.
It's not great for America, but they're on pace for what, 4%, 4.5% record GDP growth this year.
So you take 1% off that, that's not even going to dent it.
But if you cut Canada-U.S. trade in half, that would reduce Canadian GDP by 10%.
In other words, it would be the worst depression in Canada since the dirty 30s.
So yeah, good idea to keep poking the bear.
Trade War Consequences00:02:29
The price will be paid in part by American consumers and American businesses.
Yeah, not really, sister, but no, she's going to take on Trump, but America and the media love her for it.
Today, the U.S. economy stands at just a quarter of the world's.
Together, the EU, Canada, and Japan, your allies in the G7 and beyond, account for just a little bit more.
China, meanwhile, produces nearly 20% of the world's GDP.
And in our lifetimes, its economy is set to become the world's largest.
So is she saying we can go it alone without the United States?
I think that's what she said.
I think she's saying she might get to like China better, I think.
Isn't she saying that if Trump doesn't want to give her what she wants, maybe China will?
Didn't she just denounce China a minute ago?
Maybe she didn't.
I'm unclear here.
Maybe her speechwriting team was split in two or something.
But I think she's saying that if she doesn't get her way, if Donald Trump doesn't bow down before globalism and the United Nations and do what she says, he's, well, listen to her say it.
One answer is to give up on the rules-based international order.
To give up on the Western alliance and to seek to survive in a meternikian world defined not by common values, mutually agreed upon rules, and shared prosperity, but rather by a ruthless struggle between the great powers, governed solely by the narrow, short-term, and mercantilist pursuit of self-interest.
Canada could never thrive in such a world.
But you, still the world's largest economy, may be tempted.
Boy, I'd like to see her say that to Donald Trump's face.
Actually, no, no, no.
Sorry, I mean, I take that back.
I would not.
Please do not let Christy Freeland say that to Trump's face.
Nobody bring this speech to Trump's attention, please.
There is just too much kookiness in this speech to show it all to you.
But look at this sentence.
Here's part of her master diplomatic plan.
To hold the door open to new friends, to countries that have their own troubled past, such as Tunisia, Senegal, Indonesia, Mexico, Botswana, or Ukraine.
Yeah, that's Canada's economic and military future.
Mexico and Botswana.
Here's some more.
This is the difficult truth.
Statement of Claim Revealed00:14:48
As the West's relative might inevitably declines, now is the time when, more than ever, we must set aside the idea that might is right.
Look, I don't even know what she means.
I'm not even sure if she does either.
Christia Freeland is not the world's best diplomat.
She's an affirmative action quota hire.
Trudeau said so himself when he appointed her to cabinet.
Most of the time, being a token doesn't matter.
I mean, look at Maryam Moncef.
It's embarrassing, but really, who cares other than our lack of self-respect and the humiliation she brings to us.
Christia Freeland is the woman who is personally leading our NAFTA negotiations.
Top diplomat in the world?
What do you think?
Stay with us for more.
We've got a couple of lawyers on today.
You may have been seen as problematic by some of the students, maybe even threatening.
I don't.
I don't see how someone would rationally think it was threatening.
I could see how it might challenge their existing ideas, but for me, that's the spirit of the university is challenging ideas that you already have.
Is one or multiple students who've come forward saying that this is something that they were concerned about and that it made them uncomfortable.
You're perfectly welcome to your own opinions, but when you're bringing it into the context of the classroom, that can become problematic.
And that can become something that creates an unsafe learning environment for students.
But when they leave the university, they're going to be exposed to these ideas.
So I don't see how I'm doing a disservice to the class by exposing them to ideas that are really out there.
And I'm sorry I'm crying.
I'm stressed out because this to me is so wrong.
It's so wrong.
As you know, that is an excerpt from an interrogation of Lindsay Shepard, a young woman who is a master's student at Wilfrid Laurier University.
She was being persecuted.
I'm not going to say prosecuted because that implies rules and norms.
She was being persecuted, bullied, to use a phrase, by politically correct professors.
You heard one of them there saying she was creating an unsafe learning environment for daring to show a short clip of Professor Jordan Peterson in the context of a debate.
Unbelievable.
Well, very thoughtfully, Lindsay Shepard recorded that conversation.
I don't think people would have believed that it could have been that bad had she not reported it, recorded it.
Well, she managed to beat back that persecution just through the sheer weight of public opinion, but the attacks on her continued.
I think it's safe to say that Lindsay Shepard has been blackballed and blacklisted in academia.
That's not just my opinion.
It's Lindsay Shepard's own opinion.
And in fact, in recent days, she has filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier for doing just that, for making her unemployable because of their aspersions.
Joining us now via Skype is her lawyer, Howard Levitt.
Familiar to our viewers, he's a high-profile lawyer.
He's written six legal textbooks.
But he's not just a scholarly actor.
He writes popular law columns for the National Post.
What a pleasure to have him with us.
Howard, nice to see you again.
And I'm delighted that you're representing Lindsay Shepard.
I feel that she's in good hands.
Well, so am I. I'm delighted I'm representing Lindsay Shepard.
I'll make sure she's in good hands.
Well, and I'm not just praising you because I like you.
I know that she went to you when she was being interrogated for help to navigate the university's attacks on her, and you gave her counsel even in that first instance.
Am I right?
Yes, I did, right from the outset.
We refused to participate in the investigation the university held.
We didn't trust its votifidness.
And everything since then has proven that we were right.
Give me a couple of examples.
I mean, you have expertise.
One of the things you write about a lot in the National Post is employment law, as in there's a right way to fire someone in a wrong way, a right way to have an internal hearing in a wrong way.
Can you list for me, in your view, some of the things that Wilfrid Laurier did wrong?
Because of course a university should have the ability to take a student, a professor, a teaching assistant to task if they do something genuinely wrong.
But tell me procedurally and substantively some of the things that Wilfrid Laurier did that just were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well, first of all, they didn't follow any of their own procedures, any of them.
And I delineate that in detail in the statement of claim.
Secondly, they invented a petitious complaint or complaints.
We just heard that in the short passage you played about the complaint or complaints.
There were no complaint or complaints, and they lied about that.
And in fact, when Rabbuchan apologized initially, he said, well, really, I had to, well, I'm apologizing.
He said, well, I really had to deal with the complaints I received.
And of course, there were no complaints, as we've subsequently ascertained.
Thirdly, they viciously attacked her.
And it's one thing to reprimand someone for something they do that's wrong, but it has to be wrong.
And what she did wasn't wrong.
In fact, if you look at the Wilfrid Laurier Act, which gives us its jurisdiction legally, it's to promote free inquiry.
Well, they did exactly the opposite.
And they were brutal and abusive three-on-one for 55 minutes.
And then, after she leaves Rabbuchanna's tutelage, if I can call it that, she gets appointed to another professor who's already taken a public position against her and then treats her in a way that she has real complaint with following that.
So everything they've done from beginning to end has been atrocious.
Now, the 55-minute interrogation, which so many of us have heard, was shocking, and I think it rallied so many.
I was even pleased that reporters who generally are sympathetic to political correctness, they were so shocked by this one instance, by the recording, that I think they rallied to Lindsay Shepard's side.
I was actually pleased with the mass of reporters in Canada, commentators.
I think they were generally on her side because it was so egregious.
But that's what happened in their private interrogation.
Did the university also have a bit of a PR strategy to throw Lindsay under the bus in response to her recording?
I mean, the interrogation itself was bad enough, and we heard her breaking into tears.
And I've met Lindsay Shepard.
She was at our Rebel Live conference just a couple weeks ago.
She seems to me to be a very sensitive person.
Like, I don't think she's a battle warrior who loves to fight.
I mean, she struck me as someone who was pushed into this role unwillingly almost.
Did they abuse her in public in other ways too, Howard?
Destiny sought her out for certain in this case.
And now she realizes what an important mission she's inadvertently become part of.
And she doesn't want what's happened to her to continue happening.
She realizes how treacherous campus life is and how hard people have to fight to purify it from the rancor of political correctness on campus.
So since she's been treated, anyway, go ahead with your question, as we're supposed to.
No, no, that was a good point.
I mean, you're confirming my sense that she didn't choose this.
She was thrust into it, but she's risen to the occasion.
I'm sorry, I sort of put a double-barreled question at you.
Let me go back to the other part.
Other than that interrogation, has the university done, I haven't read the statement of claim yet, but maybe we can post it underneath this video for people to read.
I'd like to read it carefully all the way through.
And I know that it's your allegations the university has yet to reply with their statement of defense, but I look forward to reading it.
I can't, as you know, I'm limited in what I can say publicly.
It's a little bit like the Casey Hill case where he was sued for a million dollars for talking about a statement of claim on the floor of the just outside the legislature.
So I don't want to be accused of that.
So I don't want to delineate the grounds, but I can say this.
A department chair went into her class and did something that was embarrassing to her immediately after.
Then she was appointed to be under another professor who had already publicly attacked her and her position.
And she says, and I delineate them on my statement of claim, that professor then did three more things that were injurious and damaging to her.
And another professor also got in on the act.
And again, that's talked about on my statement of claim, but she just seemed to be bullied and harassed from start to finish.
It sounds that way.
Well, I'd like to post, obviously it's filed in court, so it is now a publicly available document.
I'd like to post that under this video.
I think our people may not be sophisticated lawyers by training, but I think they'll have enough common sense and knowledge to read through it with great interest.
And it'll be her side of the story finally told in full.
That's how, I mean, I haven't read it yet, but I look forward to reading the details.
And I understand why you don't want to articulate everything on TV as opposed to just in court.
I don't want to give the other side an opportunity to file any counter.
Got it.
I take your point.
And that's very, and I can see right away that it's very wise that she's chosen you to be her counsel.
Now, when you file a legal document.
Just so we're clear for your listeners and viewers, when you read it, it will be very easy to understand.
I wrote it with that in mind.
Excellent.
Well, I'm glad you did because there's a court of law and there's the court of public opinion.
And I think this case is important in both cases.
For people who don't have kids at university or who themselves have not been on university in a while, they probably don't quite understand how gravely academic freedom has been jeopardized.
Jordan Peterson has shone a bit of light on that.
So I think this case will have a salutary public policy impact.
Well, I hope so.
You know, one thing that's very interesting, this year, in fact, yesterday, the university reports just came out on enrollment universities and who is people's first students, first choice, and how many have enrolled or applied to these different universities.
Wilfrid Laurier, of all Ontari universities, did the worst.
Wow.
Both choices and less enrollment generally.
Obviously, people here that either students and parents of students heard about all of this and said, I don't want my kid or I don't want myself to be going to Wilfrid Laurier.
It's obviously of the 40 or 50 universities in the province.
The fact that it came absolutely worse and by significant margins is telling.
Isn't that true?
And what a reality check on the university that's an echo chamber that probably thinks what they're doing is completely normal because to them it is because they're just rebreathing each other's air.
Whereas when the public sees this, they say, yikes, we're just going to slowly back away from Laurier and go literally anywhere else.
That's a very interesting point.
Now, signaling somehow helps them.
And in fact, people get it.
To me, one of the main reasons that Ford did so well, despite his particular blemishes, is that people had just had it, the political correctness of Kathleen Wynne.
And they thought the NDP was more of the same.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, just in terms of the legal steps, because our people follow lawsuits, you filed, I take it was called a statement of claim.
The university has a certain period of time to reply.
They can perhaps ask for an extension.
Yeah, which is normally granted just out of a courtesy.
But this thing, it seems to me that their statement of defense will be interesting because it'll give an insight into their mind of how they justify this conduct.
But I have to tell you, what excites me a lot about this is the documentary discovery, as in the ability of you and Lindsay to have access to internal university records, whether it's emails, memos, staff meetings.
There are some things that are subject to their lawyer's privacy, solicitor client privilege.
But if they had a staff meeting, if they had memos, that would all be disclosable to you.
Am I right?
Absolutely right.
And at one point, here's one bit from the statement of claim from her next professor.
This professor posted a syllabus.
And then her syllabus was a land acknowledgement.
You know what I'm talking about, the Aboriginal land acknowledgements ahead of every speech these days everywhere.
But in any event, she thought this was just a ridiculous piece of political correctness to show a land acknowledgement at the top of a syllabus.
So she took the land acknowledgement, the little excerpt from the top of the syllabus, and tweeted it out, saying, isn't this ridiculous?
We're now even having territorial acknowledgements on syllabus.
So the professor called her on the carpet and told her she must delete it right away.
She said, I'm not doing it.
Delete my tweet.
No, I'm not deleting it.
She said, you are violating my intellectual property.
Oh, my God.
And she said, this is ridiculous.
And she said she was going to complain to the dean if she didn't take it down.
She didn't take it down.
And the dean came back to her and said it's not her intellectual property, Professor Nicholson's.
So what happens next?
We know that there was a meeting held by the dean with certain members of the faculty immediately after this.
I'd love to know what was discussed.
We'll find out what was discussed, an examination for discovery, and if any minutes were taken.
Deplatforming Spreads00:06:58
That's an example of the kind of thing that we're going to find out.
Were these professors reprimanded, Ram Buchanan, Pimlott, and Adrian Joel?
I don't know.
We'll find out.
We get to find out everything.
Why did Deborah McClatchy, the president, refuse to not say, I'm giving a double negative, let me put it more simply, on Steve Pacan's TBO, right after this all broke, Pacan asked McClatchy repeatedly, did Lindsay Shepard do anything wrong?
And she, in terms of showing the Jordan Peterson clip.
And McClatchy would not say that she had done nothing wrong, implying that she had done something wrong.
Well, it was only after, of course, there was massive public outcry that then she tried to sanitize the whole thing with an investigation and then admitted that she had done nothing wrong.
But that was not her initial reaction.
Because my understanding, McClatchy's historically a social justice warrior, too.
And I'd like to know the memos between McClatchy's office and others.
Yeah.
I'd like to see if they were disparaging her privately while claiming to be fair to her publicly.
I'd like to see if they're if they if the fix was in privately while they were claiming to have fair procedure publicly.
I think that just before you go on on that point, what memos were there just before that meeting?
Yeah.
Because, of course, to have any sort of procedural fairness, the meeting has to be meaningful, as in she could say something that would exculpate her.
But if the fix was in to begin with, then it wasn't a real investigation.
It was a bullying session because there could be no other outcome.
This is very interesting.
As we're allowed to remove herself from that particular interrogation inquisition, we know from watching it the fix was in.
Yeah.
We know that.
This is fascinating.
I look forward to reading this case in detail and following it as it goes every step of the way.
I have to tell you, the more I think through the documentary discovery and the oral, I know that you can examine different people.
Are you suing the university only or are there particular individuals?
The university, Remby Canna, Humlott, and Joel.
And you know what?
Just from watching some of those professors, they're so chatty and they're so entitled.
I don't think they're going to be able to keep their mouths shut.
I think they're going to go off on long rants.
I have to say, I believe in my bones that the essential claim that Lindsay's being blackballed by this university's conduct, I believe that in my bones.
And I think we'll see what the judge has to say.
We'll see what the statement of defense has to say.
But I think that this suit has some merits on the face of it.
But I am much, much more interested in the revelations that will be elicited by this.
It was the revelation of their private interrogation that got this whole story going to begin with.
It was a secret recording.
And I think now you're going to blow that up tenfold with all this documentary discovery.
This might be the most important academic freedom lawsuit in a generation.
And I'm not just indulging in hyperbole.
You've got the worst case that we can think of in memory with the worst actors.
And now you're going to get their internal memos.
I think this is going to be a blockbuster.
It's fabulous.
I just hope it doesn't settle because there's such an important social good in my view, and I gather yours for prosecuting this case.
But social justice warriors will no longer be able to believe they can conduct themselves the way they have for the last so many years with impunity.
That the light will be shown on them and will go after their pocketbooks.
Yeah.
Well, of course, the decision to settle is Lindsay's alone, but from my few interactions with her and my observations of her, I think she's motivated by the public interest.
I don't think she's just out for a buck.
She's never asked for money.
She's never set up a go fund me page.
So it doesn't look like she's trying to be an entrepreneur for financial gain.
I actually believe in her heart she's motivated by this.
It takes someone like that to take on an institution.
Howard, I'm delighted that you are the lawyer.
I feel like you're uniquely situated for it.
This is very interesting, and please keep us posted as this moves through the courts.
And obviously, we're not going to have Lindsay on to talk about it in a manner that would in any way jeopardize the legal integrity of the case.
So maybe we can talk to you from time to time because we know you'll be very careful about that.
Andrew, look, I'm a lawyer, but I'm also politically active, as you probably know.
And it's my mission, too.
I have a personal interest in stopping the type of nonsense that occurred here.
Well, I'm thrilled to, I know that, and I'm glad that you confirmed that, and our viewers are supporting you.
And we've kept you a long time here, and I know you're very busy.
I mean, you're actually, you are a working lawyer at Levitt LLP.
So thank you for spending the time with us.
I can't tell you how excited I am to have you on this file.
We talk with John Carpe, who's another public interest lawyer, and there's very few public interest lawyers on our side of the aisle on these things.
So on behalf of our viewers, let me say thank you.
I feel like Lindsay's in good hands, and I feel like she will make an outstanding plaintiff.
So good luck to us all.
Yes.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, that's very interesting.
Thank you.
That's Howard Levitt.
He's an employment lawyer with Levitt LLP, the author of six legal textbooks.
Of course, he's also a columnist for the National Post.
And I am thrilled that he is representing Lindsay Shepard.
And the more I think about it, the more I think this case will be important for the whole country, not just for Lindsay Shepard.
Stay with us.
More ahead on The Rebel.
Welcome back.
Well, one of the things that I've encountered in recent years, and I'm not alone, but I follow it more closely now, is something called deplatforming.
It's a made-up word, isn't it?
And you can see where it comes from.
You have a platform to say something, a stage on a theater, a website, even social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook.
Well, the left these days doesn't believe in getting on the platform with you and having a debate.
You don't actually see that many rollicking debates between right and left anymore, do you?
And so if there's a conservative event, like for example, when we had a conference at the Monte Cassino Conference Center and Hotel in Toronto, the left didn't show up to debate us.
Deplatforming Debate00:12:37
They showed up to threaten the hotel to have them tear up the contract for our event.
Deplatforming, and it's spreading, which brings us to today's story.
Last November, a private group of people wanted to rent out space at the Ottawa Public Library to play a movie for a group of people who would get tickets.
That's what libraries do.
They're not just for books, they're meeting places.
And a contract was signed.
Well, the subject matter of the movie was controversial, which is what leftists call anything they want to discredit.
Well, that's fine.
If you don't want to watch it, don't come.
Well, that's not how deplatforming works.
Like I say, they didn't come to debate.
They came to shut it down.
And indeed, they pressured the Ottawa Public Library.
And after approving this event and signing a contract, they ripped it up, banning the movie from being screened.
Well, wouldn't you know it?
Canada's sole civil liberties lawyer, maybe with one or two exceptions, our friend John Carpe in the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, is here to set that right.
John, great to see you.
Welcome to being here in our studio.
It's nice to have you here in Toronto.
Good to see you.
Did I properly outline the facts of the movie?
And I want to get the name of the documentary right.
It's called Killing Europe, which is a spicy title.
Tell me a little bit about the movie and this movie event at the Ottawa Public Library.
So Killing Europe was done by a Danish guy who emigrated to the United States.
And 15 years later, he came back and he found Denmark was very transformed.
They had big concrete barriers in the downtown to stop any driving terrorism attacks where the truck goes along the streets or kills people.
And he interviews a lot of people about the big wave of immigrants in 2015.
And his documentary suggests that this is not all good for Europe to have had this large wave of young single men and talks about the impact of immigration on Europe, talks about the effect, looks at, for example, rape statistics in Norway and Sweden, which have just skyrocketed.
And so it's a controversial film.
I've seen the whole thing myself.
I think it certainly articulates a perspective.
But the Ottawa Library, just for political pressure reasons, they signed the contract and they canceled the viewing.
Yeah.
On the screen right now, we're showing some excerpts from that film.
We've talked to those people.
Mona Walters, she's a refugee, really.
I mean, she came from a Muslim country to Sweden, and she left Islam, has been under attack.
Lars had a guard there, another free speech activity.
So these are people, they have a strong political point of view.
None of them are criminals.
None of them foment violence.
None of them call for violence.
They're just having a debate about open borders, Islam, immigration.
I mean, I personally met some of those folks, and they're very pleasant, actually.
In fact, many of them have to be in hiding because they're being bullied.
What excuse did the library give for shutting down this film?
I mean, you can disagree with the film, but is the new rule that only films the library agrees with they'll show?
Well, that seems to be the case.
The pretext was a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code by virtue of this movie.
But the Human Rights Code, did they give a particular what this movie broke this rule?
Like, that just, that sounds made up.
No, it's a platitude.
It's like, you know, well, you know, the rebel is against the Ontario Human Rights Code.
I mean, it's a platitude designed to intimidate.
It was a local lawyer, left-wing activist, Richard Warman, who got this, you know, social media campaign, and people were writing to the mayor of Ottawa and city councillors, and then pressure was put on the, and they were writing to the library staff and people in charge of the library.
And so they caved to political pressure, that this was a hateful extremist, you know, the usual rhetoric.
But there's nothing in the movie that would fall afoul of the Canada Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code or even the human rights legislation.
There's nothing in it.
It's a slogan.
Other than just the bold statement, this is against the law, was there anything specific they cited?
Did they say this word or this, they just said, we've heard this.
No, and there's no reference to the movie because you would be hard-pressed.
If you saw the movie, you would see it consists of interviews and Mona Walter.
She's amazing.
She's a very courageous woman.
And I mean, frankly, you say she's a woman of color, an immigrant, who was born a Muslim.
That's ticking a lot of politically correct boxes.
Frankly, I thought she was very passionate and very thoughtful.
Let the woman be heard.
How did they communicate to the folks who booked the venue?
How did they communicate?
Was it a phone call or an email or a letter?
How did they cancel it?
The organizer was Madeline Weld, who's based in Ottawa, and she was the go-between person.
It was booked in her name.
And so they told Madeline, first they said you have to get security and pay for security.
And did she say yes to that?
She said yes to that, which is pretty generous.
Yeah.
Because really, why should she have to make it?
Why should she have to do it?
That's not an issue in this court case.
That's an issue in some other court cases we're doing.
But so Madeline was then told, first she was told to get security, and then she was just told, no, it's being canceled.
The thing too is this is not a film that's being forced on anybody by being in the main entrance of the library.
This is a film that would be like a private event with an Eventbrite or whatever.
And sign it up.
So tickets were for sale, right?
Tickets were for sale.
I don't know the price, but probably $5 or $10 or $15 a month.
So no one is seeing this that doesn't say, yes, I want to see it, and here's $5 that proves I want to see it.
And the other great thing they had was that the producer of the movie himself was present, and he would have been there for a Q ⁇ A. After the film festival.
You know, the best film festivals, and I've had the chance to go to a few, they take questions.
They love a rambunctious Q ⁇ A. That's what makes it more interesting.
If someone had an object, did anyone, well I guess the event didn't happen, did anyone that you know of, did any of the critics say, I'm going to come, I want to come and challenge it, because that would be interesting.
I don't know who said it.
We have no idea because it was canceled.
All right, so the JCCF, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, in my mind, the leading civil liberties law firm in this country.
You defend free speech.
That's what we're doing here today.
So you have filed a claim on behalf of Madeline Weld and Valerie Thomas, who was another organizer.
So you're suing the Ottawa Public Library.
Is that correct?
Yeah.
And we're seeking a court declaration.
We're not after them for money.
Our court cases are always we want to get the court to uphold the rights.
And we're saying it was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Right.
Because they're a government-owned public building.
Absolutely.
And what's interesting about the charter is the charter free expression right is not only your right and my right and everybody else's right to speak, it's also a right to hear and listen.
And we're going to argue that in this case, it's not just the right of Madeline Weld to speak by showing this movie or the producer of the movie, the Danish producer, but it's the right of people to see and hear and listen is part of the free expression rights.
So we're saying this violates the charter.
It's unreasonable.
So all the people who wanted to pay five bucks, why should they not be able to hear something they want to hear, even if they want to hear it, because they disagree with it.
They want to know what the other side thinks.
And.
And their rights are denied.
And their right to question the producer and to listen to what he had to say.
Do we have any case law in Canada that says there is a right to listen?
Absolutely.
Oh, we do.
We're arguing it in this.
Oh, well, you know, I'm so glad to hear it.
We need more people to do this.
So you've served the lawsuit on the library?
Are you about to do that?
Yeah.
And obviously they haven't had a chance to reply.
No response yet.
Now they'll have government resources at their disposal.
Probably.
Yeah, I mean, they're a public thing.
Do you think that...
Governments are not shy about spending taxpayers' money on court cases, whether their case has any merit or not.
I mean, the University of Calgary has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know, fighting for its right to censor speech on campus.
University of Alberta, the same thing.
Yeah, and deep pockets.
Now, libraries of all places have a reputation of free speech.
I mean, I'm a controversial fellow in some quarters, but I was invited by the Toronto Librarians Association.
I mean, that's to invite a right-wing guy like me to speak to their library convention, that shows, and they wanted me to talk about freedom of speech.
And I did.
And this was a few years ago, and I was well received.
Librarians are sort of the keeper of free speech in a way, because there are books in a library that upset anybody or everybody.
And you've got to be able to say, look, if you don't like that book, don't read it.
And maybe we're going to put some things on the top shelf so kids don't see it.
And maybe there's some things that we might even have in a special collection.
But I don't think even Mein Kampf should be banned.
I'm a Jew and I obviously don't like Nazism, but surely it's a historical work that we ought to be able to read and learn from.
So I think librarians historically have been keepers of freedom.
To have librarians be censors is so contrary to their nature.
And that's why we're taking on the case.
Because, you know, you could see this movie Killing Europe.
You could see it online.
But that's not the point.
The point is that the public authorities, because it's a government body, if it was a purely private entity, we would not be suing it.
If you're a private entity, you do whatever you want.
But this is a government body.
And we're saying you cannot cave to political correctness and start censoring viewpoints that are controversial.
Well, I tell you, we support you morally.
You remain our favorite activist.
You're actually getting things done.
I know you have staff lawyers, so you're not spending money hiring expensive lawyers to come in and help.
But I know you have costs.
And I asked you before we turned the cameras on if we could try and scare together a little bit of dough.
I'm going to put in $50 myself just as a symbolic, because I know even just to file the case would be a few hundred bucks.
I'm going to see if we can put together $2,000 just to assist because I know that you aren't getting government funding.
No.
That's right.
Because you're taking on the government every time.
We've set up a small website for this.
It's called NoLibraryBan.com.
And if you want to join me, I'm putting in 50 bucks.
If you want to put in 50, if you can only afford five, that's fine.
And why don't we run this for a week and see what we can do?
And then we'll see, thank you.
Well, thank you, John.
And you do such good work on free speech.
By the way, give me an update on your Man of the Year award before we go.
So George Jonas, personal friend, somebody whom I admired.
He was a national post-colonist, author of many books, refugee from communist Hungary, fled the country after the unsuccessful 1956 uprising.
Great Canadian, passed away in 2016.
And with the blessing of Maya Jonas, his wife, we have set up the George Jonas Freedom Award.
And it's going to be an annual event.
It's being held June 15th on his birthday.
Oh, great.
On George Jonas's birthday.
Oh, great.
Yeah.
And the first recipient is going to be Mark Stein.
Wow, there you go.
Absolutely.
He's a very great advocate for freedom.
He himself has, of course, been subject to censorship for what's going on.
So, yeah, well, that's great.
And I wish you good luck at that.
And that's a fundraiser for you, is it?
I hope so.
Actually, no.
It's a rebrand.
We're deliberately doing it as a break-even.
We've kept the ticket prices down so that the primary purpose is to honor George Jonas.
That's nice, yeah.
And so, yeah, we're going to break even on the dinner.
It's not a fundraiser.
Okay, are there still tickets left?
No.
No, sold out.
Sorry.
No, I'm glad to hear it.
I'm glad to hear that that event sold out.
Well, congratulations to you.
The JCCF has really grown and is really doing exciting things.
I won't get into other cases now, but whenever you have a case, let us know about it.
If it's you or one of your litigation directors, and folks, please go to nolibraryban.com.
I think it's important that libraries become places of open dialogue, not censorship.
Last word to you, John.
Were you going to say one more thing there?
Sold Out Event00:02:01
I thought.
No, I thought I heard you in Hale about to say something.
No, you're all done.
All right, folks.
Stay with us.
That's just more Hit on the Rambo.
Hey, welcome back.
On my interview yesterday with David Horowitz, Dereborough writes, it's such a pleasure listening to someone who speaks the truth about the left wing and how they are attacking and undermining our freedoms.
David's experience with the cult of leftism is invaluable.
I'm so glad that he continues to expose them and to teach conservatives how to oppose them.
Yeah, me too.
You know, I apologize again.
The Skype connection was a little scratchy, but I thought, you know, we got to do it anyways, because even though it was a little bit scratchy, I wanted to show you what he had to say.
Alan writes, any chance of making David Horowitz a regular?
Conservatives need to hear him.
Well, I'd love to.
I sense that he's, first of all, super busy with the Horowitz Freedom Center.
They've got a ton of stuff going on.
And I don't know.
I mean, I'd like to.
I don't want to be presumptuous.
I think he's a busy guy.
And maybe if he did something, he would do something through his own institution.
But I think that's a great idea.
Jerry writes, get rid of that jerk Trudeau.
What a jack.
Great ending of the interview.
Yeah, fair enough.
Bob and Iris write, I have to tell you, Ezra, that every time your show comes on and our male German Shepherd hears your voice, he starts barking and demanding cookies.
And here we have a picture.
You know what?
I believe that, and I think that's an interesting Pavlovian response, if you know what I mean.
And the funny thing is, whenever the show comes on, I sort of crave cookies too.